MichFan

LOL. You cite the history of France, Germany, and Russia to try and prove AD wrong? You may want to revisit the history books, paying particular attention to the 20th Century. The "common sense" in this matter clearly indicates that these countries were profitting from the Oil For Food scandal and had an inside track on lucrative contracts once they forced the rollback of sanctions in the U.N.

The pollsters seem to have the work ethic of Kerry and Edwards. Do an hours worth of work and then self-promote yourself for the rest of the week. Bet you they have great tans and fingernails.

I thought that was the purpose of the Iraq war -- to identify the greatest potential threats for another 9/11 attack and preempt them. Of course I'm assuming that you see our inability to see the gathering risk and prevent the 9/11 attacks as the biggest F-up our government has done, maybe that's not the case?

What I'm saying is people are is just quibbling over the details at this point. No "war on terror" would have been perceived as credible by a majority of the American people if Saddam Hussein were allowed to stay in power and have sanctions rolled back. I'm a big picture guy and in the big picture this will be proven the right thing to do (as long as Bush wins, that is).

Absolutely. Woodward's book cites Bush stating that he wanted to be a second term president but if it was a choice between that and removing Saddam from power, he would pursue Saddam. I think he erred in identifying the options. In fact, if George W. Bush had not removed Saddam Hussein from power, he would be unelectable today. The American people would not have accepted the notion of Saddam still being in power in Iraq and U.N. resolutions being scaled back. The fact that he is even in this race is a sign he made the right decision. BTW - nice edit on your original post.

Kelly, my quote was: I believe this article does in fact reinforce what I stated.

Guess you anti-war libs should have added "and specifically excluding Iraq". Oh well, you snooze you lose.

Hey, gmac, in case you need a link to support that yellowcake uranium claim, here you go: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...4-2004Jul9.html Some crazy lib may show up challenging the validity of this one. Figured I'd give you a pretty straight source so they couldn't use the old "right wing nut job" claim they so love when they see Drudge or FoxNews.

In fact, Great Britain is standing by the validity of this intelligence and Joe Wilson's investigation was shown to be less than reliable.

People in the Middle East right now are ruled by keeping them poor, ignorant, and/or fearful. Sounds corny, but I firmly believe that when people sense hope and see a pathway to freedom, they will pursue it. Just the idea that Afghan women are returning to school and voting is a fine example of this. Unfortunately, to get the momentum going in the Middle East we have had to address the two most repressive regimes militarily. Done properly, diplomatic pressure and limited tactical strikes should be effective in the future.

BadDad, your circular argument just means you are dug in as deeply as I am in our positions. The fact is, a decision had to be made 2 years ago based on what was known 2 years ago. Your revisionist posts may make you feel like you are being influential, but not a single person on this board is going to change their minds based on anything you or I write.

I think we are entering a stage in history where it will be unacceptable to the broader world community for dictatorships, theocracies, and eventually but much later on, kingdoms, to reign in the Middle East. Success in Iraq and Afghanistan will help develop internal pressures, a "freedom coalition" will provide external pressures.

Kind of like what happened to Iraq's neighbor to the North?

Libs -- this Iraq thing has been debated ad nauseum in topic after topic. There are basically two perspectives on Iraq. The libs hold a very narrow view of the war in Iraq and see it as an isolated event. Conservatives have a very broad view of the war on terror and don't see how you can claim to have a war on terror while allowing Saddam to stay in power in Iraq. Not going to waste time rehashing the same old, same old in this thread. In fact it doesn't matter what Bush did in Iraq -- you weren't going to vote for him regardless. I strongly agree with Kerry's Iraq policy from 1997-2002/3. It's the post-Dean Kerry that I have so much trouble with. You lose a lot of credibility when you try to excuse one Kerry with the other, and it gets even worse when you claim both are the same (that he has been consistent all along).

So you think the alternative is better than where we are now? You're entitled to that opinion, but I think it is fatally naive. Go to www.kerryoniraq.com. Watch the movie. I particularly like the interviews with Kerry in '97 and '98. Kerry makes a stronger and more compelling case for unilateral, preemptive war on Iraq than the administration ever did. He even acknowledged that he was far beyond his party and his colleagues (Republicans included) on the issue of Iraq. If you wanted an anti-war candidate, you should have stuck with Dean. Presenting your argument against the Iraq war in an effort to sway people to vote for Kerry is simply a waste of time. It was good for a laugh, though.

I think it is worse that a political party is intent on demoralizing our troops for political gain. I guess it just comes naturally to that party's presidential candidate. Of course, if that party were to win power and things turn out right, it will have been worth it and they'll freely take credit for everything.

The libs seem to be missing a key point -- key to the future of success in this war on terror (no surprise). Mission accomplished marked the end of combat operations in Iraq -- essentially the end of Saddam's rule and the beginning of the occupation force's rule. Then another event happened -- the occupation force turned the reigns over to Iraqis in the form of a provisional government. At the time the provisional goverment took power, they had the ability to ask the coalition forces to leave their country, yet they asked them to stay. At this point, Iraq became an ally and in effect a member of the coalition. Cheney was dead on when he said Kerry/Edwards are using the 90% figure to make a point, and in doing so are insulting the contributions and sacrifices of Iraqis. Their scorched earth policy on Iraq is extremely dangerous. If they win, my question is how much of a coalition will be left? Why would any other country continue to stay in Iraq as part of the coalition if the American people decide even they don't have the will to stay the course? The political pressure on leaders of our coalition partners will be enormous and they likely won't be willing to continue taking the heat after the trashing Kerry/Edwards gave them.

The new "ignore" feature is great, Captain. I just tried it and now I don't have to suffer through blzrul's ignorant contributions to PPP anymore.

Could you imagine the nature of the debate on Iraq if Saddam were still in power today and Bush were trying to convince us that, despite the U.N. starting to relax sanctions, we're all going to be okay? Do you think Kerry and Edwards would be in agreement? The libs live in a dream world and you can't handle the fact that tough decisions need to be made, not delayed. Libs --their favorite position is the fetal, and I've heard they suck a mean thumb.

Edwards did fine for a lawyer who changed careers and has 4 years experience in the Senate. The naivity of this guy is charming while at the same time alarming in a VP candidate. The democratic base got served enough of what they probably needed tonight to keep the momentum going in the wake of Kerry's performance, but this performance probably hurt with the all powerful undecideds. By this time following the first debate, the libs had lit up this board talking about Kerry's win. Many conservatives were classy in acknowledging Kerry's victory and issues with Bush. No surprise - as of yet the same class has not been returned. I'm sure tomorrow we'll be hearing about how Edwards trounced Cheney. After all, he used the time tested Tennyboy debate tactic (HALIBURTON) as well as the classic blzrul tactic (screw the facts, just bash bash bash).

Cheney blistered Edwards for the first hour of this debate. Edwards came back a little toward the end. The domestic piece got into taxes and deficits early on,then Edwards proceeded to promise big program after big program. I think anyone who stuck around for the end probably saw the vast gap between these two Kerry/Edwards positions. Overall, Cheney looked liked a statesman ready to fill the Oval Office, Edwards looked like less than that. Can Bush carry the torch now. In all honesty, I'm more than a little concerned. By the way, is there any way to have the moderator for this debate made the permanent moderator? She blew away Lehrer with the questions she chose and the way she handled the candidates.

Simply unbelievable that Kerry the master debater needed a cheat sheet to get through. Even more unbelievable that despite the cheat sheet he still was factually wrong on so many things. Like you, Rich, I can't wait to hear the excuses, denials, and "no big deals". I have gone from a casual dislike for Kerry to a deep disgust with him.

This has no legs with the American public, but if the Dems want to spend time trying to make this case then by all means have at it. It saves the RNC money -- they can get more out of the Iraq flip-flop commercial that is so effective.

I think this has to do with the way Bush operates. He has hand picked people he has great confidence in and empowered them to do their best. As such, he is a big picture guy who trusts his staff when it comes to the details. Kerry can debate the minutia because that is inherent to the way he operates as a Senator. Bush can't because it's the opposite to how he operates as a president. On a day when he should have been focusing on talking points for the debate, he was visiting hurricane victims. In an earlier reply you stated he would be willing to lose for the sake of protecting sensitive intelligence. I strongly admire him for things like this, but this guy's compassion and respect for the office are going to cost him an election if he doesn't watch out.

If this actually is the case, the question then becomes -- is Bush willing to declassify the information needed to show Kerry is being disingenuine in his efforts to win the presidency? I'd rather expose a little sensitive information to keep Bush in office than have Kerry win in a farce.